|
On February 23 2013 06:16 Xain wrote:
People in Quebec feel like they share a unique culture. Like any human being, they feel like it is worth preserving. People saying that they don't feel any attachment to their country and culture and don't feel like it should be preserved, even in the face of potential extinction, maybe you should do some introspection to understand the feeling.
Now, is that good or bad? In the grand scheme of things, is cultural diversity a good thing, or a bad thing? Yes, maybe we would be better off with a monoculture, a single language, because there would be more understanding, less wars, etc. Differences can create incomprehension and hate and all that stuff. But the things is, differences are going to appear anyway, regardless of culture, between individuals. So the answer is not to try and diminish the importance of other languages and cultures in our life for the sake of communication, but rather we should celebrate them, because by learning to open ourselves to other cultures and languages, we learn to open ourselves to outcasts in our own culture, our own family, and within us.
Quebec is a good thing for Canada, because it forces english and french Canadians to think about this difficult issue (and thus learning something), and even if most of them are unfortunately kind of stupid in their response. See this thread for examples... If you live in an environment where you only ever read one language, and always see the same artists, I can guarantee you are going to grow on average more stupid than otherwise.
So why protect french, protect the natives, protect small cultures that would die without help of the government or other external means? Because we get more intelligent and mature as a whole by being in contact with them, and a country made of more tolerant, mature and intelligent people will have a brighter future.
This implies that I am actively seeking to diminish other cultures. The issue at hand it quite the opposite. The culture which is supposedly being naturally diminished through outside influences is preserving itself through unconstitutional means. There is no one in this argument that is xenophobic towards Quebec.
We are teaching future generations that they should be prideful of something that they had no merrit of accomplishing themselves. Contrary to popular belief pride isn't a beneficial trait and never has been. Even less so when they had no participation in what they are prideful about.
Like I said before stressing certain parts of your brain may make those parts more intelligent but not doing so or doing so of other means in no way makes anyone "stupid".
In this case it is up to the people to stop being so emotionally tied to something which the world has naturally gone through hundreds of times before and has not made the human race inferior because of it. It's up to them to lose their pride and adapt to new times, not us to support (with our tax dollars) an idiology which puts an emotional tie before constitutional rights
|
Dawski, we need to have a beer together man. You're missing my point.
1) I'm not a Québécois.
2) I don't support loi 101 the way it stands (nor does it really apply because I live in Ontario)
3) Seriously man, we should make it a thing to go have a beer.
I never said you were dumb. All having another language can do is open you up to the world. I'm happy I can speak English. Just like I'm happy I can speak a bit of Spanish.
This is bigger than Canada man.
Think of this like exploring a secret cave. With another language, you can explore the cave, and bring back some of the treasure to your friends. You might even meet some new friends in the cave and have a better understanding of how the world works.
If that's not worth a few signs here and there, I don't know what is.
|
On February 22 2013 08:35 Dawski wrote:
I'm going to come at this thread from another angle which I've sort-of pointed myself towards in my previous posts. I want you guys to explain to me why Nationalism and pride in your culture instead of your personal merrits is... well.. a good thing to have.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind"
-Albert Einstein
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
- Charles de Gaulle
:p
I don't think nationalism is a rational behaviour. It is "love" for an idea, after all (in the best case), and love works in mysterious ways. In any case, you either love your culture or you don't, or you love it a little more or a little less. I'd be very careful with the "shoulds" here!
Human sciences have also attacked the idea of personal merit - not saying that there is none, but it has outlined the vast number of factors which come into play but are out of our reach with theories like Bourdieu's habitus,
I, for example, am fluent in three languages, almost in four. I have no merit in that, and yet it has been very beneficial my whole life! My first job at 18 was paid quite a little more than minimum wage, for example, because I could do simple things that went beyond stacking crates. And the reason I'm learning german, and am open to other countries, is because I grew up with that interest to begin with. So, how is being proud of what my education made me any different than being proud of my country?
I'd also point out, to those that wish for a minimal state, that the Middle-Ages were in fact a time of weak administrative power. Actually, even large well-built empires like the Romans had little administrative control over the different dukes (ducis) that ruled the provinces. Were those times of personal freedom? Nay! Power was simply passed to local lords.
|
On February 23 2013 06:28 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 06:16 Xain wrote:
People in Quebec feel like they share a unique culture. Like any human being, they feel like it is worth preserving. People saying that they don't feel any attachment to their country and culture and don't feel like it should be preserved, even in the face of potential extinction, maybe you should do some introspection to understand the feeling.
Now, is that good or bad? In the grand scheme of things, is cultural diversity a good thing, or a bad thing? Yes, maybe we would be better off with a monoculture, a single language, because there would be more understanding, less wars, etc. Differences can create incomprehension and hate and all that stuff. But the things is, differences are going to appear anyway, regardless of culture, between individuals. So the answer is not to try and diminish the importance of other languages and cultures in our life for the sake of communication, but rather we should celebrate them, because by learning to open ourselves to other cultures and languages, we learn to open ourselves to outcasts in our own culture, our own family, and within us.
Quebec is a good thing for Canada, because it forces english and french Canadians to think about this difficult issue (and thus learning something), and even if most of them are unfortunately kind of stupid in their response. See this thread for examples... If you live in an environment where you only ever read one language, and always see the same artists, I can guarantee you are going to grow on average more stupid than otherwise.
So why protect french, protect the natives, protect small cultures that would die without help of the government or other external means? Because we get more intelligent and mature as a whole by being in contact with them, and a country made of more tolerant, mature and intelligent people will have a brighter future. This implies that I am actively seeking to diminish other cultures. The issue at hand it quite the opposite. The culture which is supposedly being naturally diminished through outside influences is preserving itself through unconstitutional means. There is no one in this argument that is xenophobic towards Quebec. We are teaching future generations that they should be prideful of something that they had no merrit of accomplishing themselves. Contrary to popular belief pride isn't a beneficial trait and never has been. Even less so when they had no participation in what they are prideful about. Like I said before stressing certain parts of your brain may make those parts more intelligent but not doing so or doing so of other means in no way makes anyone "stupid". In this case it is up to the people to stop being so emotionally tied to something which the world has naturally gone through hundreds of times before and has not made the human race inferior because of it. It's up to them to lose their pride and adapt to new times, not us to support (with our tax dollars) an idiology which puts an emotional tie before constitutional rights
Loi 101 is FAR from responsible for the amount of cultural products that come out of Québec. It's one brick in the wall. Seriously.
|
good post xain , but im guessing dawski will understand nothing
honestly you should respect other culture , and who are you dawski for say such rude thing about quebec and the culture ??
for exemple you say
why does it HAVE to be normal? what is the NEED of any language in a society which has no positive benefits?
when you say that no one will take you seriously , that like asking in china and france
( ho damn they talk french too here , guess they bring no positive benefits too ) or any other country in the world where they dont talk your amazing language , they bring no positive benefits ??!!!
and who are you for force a language ON PEOPLE ?? you are the same guy who not happy because you need to respect some rules in quebec but you want everyone to talk your language ?? and be forced to do so ?? sorry to burst you buble but not everyone in quebec talk and know english .why they should learn your language ?? you will force them ??
then you say
Stop taking things so personally! The french culture is dying itself because of outside english influences, you said it yourself. The whole point i've been trying to make for the past couple pages is why is an emotional tie being enforced by legislature
hope you are kidding here , the french culture and the culture quebec bring to the canada realy high in fact that probably your heart , just like ontario and so on are the one for food and stuft like that , how many actress, singer ?? madona ?? sound , music , movie , book autor you think are from quebec , just art ?? the quebec realy rich in culture and you look like a fool for say something like that . honestly if you remove quebec from canada you probably loss 50 % of all this culture i have say and diversity . you will look grey and boring . people visit canada mostly for quebec ..... that what they want to see usualy .
you can google some stuft , you will learn about the rich culture , feal free to come visit one day , dont worry you will do fine if you talk only english , since we respect the billingal culture .
|
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
- Charles de Gaulle
I don't think nationalism is a rational behaviour. It is "love" for an idea, after all (in the best case), and love works in mysterious ways. In any case, you either love your culture or you don't, or you love it a little more or a little less. I'd be very careful with the "shoulds" here!
Human sciences have also attacked the idea of personal merit - not saying that there is none, but it has outlined the vast number of factors which come into play but are out of our reach with theories like Bourdieu's habitus,
I, for example, am fluent in three languages, almost in four. I have no merit in that, and yet it has been very beneficial my whole life! My first job at 18 was paid quite a little more than minimum wage, for example, because I could do simple things that went beyond stacking crates. And the reason I'm learning german, and am open to other countries, is because I grew up with that interest to begin with. So, how is being proud of what my education made me any different than being proud of my country?
I'd also point out, to those that wish for a minimal state, that the Middle-Ages were in fact a time of weak administrative power. Actually, even large well-built empires like the Romans had little administrative control over the different dukes (ducis) that ruled the provinces. Were those times of personal freedom? Nay! Power was simply passed to local lords.
Yeah apart from what I sound like at some points in this thread I do completely agree with the idea that only reason we make decisions to do things in this life is based on our upbringing and life experiences. All I meant was that if you WERE going to be proud of something, even though pride isn't a good trait to begin with, then something you have absolutely no control over and doesn't change the fact that you're human like the rest of us is even further degradation of society. What I should've instead focused on was pride in general.
3) Seriously man, we should make it a thing to go have a beer.
Haha deal  if you're ever in the greater vancouver area just send me a pm.
|
On February 23 2013 06:49 quebecman77 wrote:
good post xain , but im guessing dawski will understand nothing
honestly you should respect other culture , and who are you dawski for say such rude thing about quebec and the culture ??
for exemple you say
why does it HAVE to be normal? what is the NEED of any language in a society which has no positive benefits?
when you say that no one will take you seriously , that like asking in china and france
( ho damn they talk french too here , guess they bring no positive benefits too ) or any other country in the world where they dont talk your amazing language , they bring no positive benefits ??!!!
and who are you for force a language ON PEOPLE ?? you are the same guy who not happy because you need to respect some rules in quebec but you want everyone to talk your language ?? and be forced to do so ?? sorry to burst you buble but not everyone in quebec talk and know english .why they should learn your language ?? you will force them ??
then you say
Stop taking things so personally! The french culture is dying itself because of outside english influences, you said it yourself. The whole point i've been trying to make for the past couple pages is why is an emotional tie being enforced by legislature
hope you are kidding here , the french culture and the culture quebec bring to the canada realy high in fact that probably your heart , just like ontario and so on are the one for food and stuft like that , how many actress, singer ?? madona ?? sound , music , movie , book autor you think are from quebec , just art ?? the quebec realy rich in culture and you look like a fool for say something like that . honestly if you remove quebec from canada you probably loss 50 % of all this culture i have say and diversity . you will look grey and boring . people visit canada mostly for quebec ..... that what they want to see usualy .
you can google some stuft , you will learn about the rich culture , feal free to come visit one day , dont worry you will do fine if you talk only english , since we respect the billingal culture .
If this is your opinion of me then you are lost in your pride of culture. The points I made were valid and your absolute nationalism towards your culture is proved when you say things like "people visit canada mostly for quebec.... that what they want to see usually"
I've made my points and you may take them as rude if you wish but the deeper question behind them was not ignorant or mean in the slightest. I never once said you were forced to... I said that your culture was naturally being influenced by the english people around you and unconstitutional legislation is not the answer.
|
On February 23 2013 06:36 Dugrok wrote:
Dawski, we need to have a beer together man. You're missing my point.
1) I'm not a Québécois.
2) I don't support loi 101 the way it stands (nor does it really apply because I live in Ontario)
3) Seriously man, we should make it a thing to go have a beer.
I never said you were dumb. All having another language can do is open you up to the world. I'm happy I can speak English. Just like I'm happy I can speak a bit of Spanish.
This is bigger than Canada man.
Think of this like exploring a secret cave. With another language, you can explore the cave, and bring back some of the treasure to your friends. You might even meet some new friends in the cave and have a better understanding of how the world works.
If that's not worth a few signs here and there, I don't know what is.
I guess I just don't feel that emotional connection to learning a new language. You learn a language to communicate with human beings. The way the language sounds doesn't really matter, how it influenced a lot of art doesn't really matter. I just don't see how learning a new language is delving deep into how the world works.
It's about a few signs not allowed to be here or there. The stepping over of individual rights to protect an emotional tie to culture which me and many others do not feel. I will continue to look at anyone in any culture as another awesome human being (not saying you don't lol had to quick edit that in)
I gotta go but I'll be back tonight, been a fun little discussion so far
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 23 2013 06:28 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 06:16 Xain wrote:
People in Quebec feel like they share a unique culture. Like any human being, they feel like it is worth preserving. People saying that they don't feel any attachment to their country and culture and don't feel like it should be preserved, even in the face of potential extinction, maybe you should do some introspection to understand the feeling.
Now, is that good or bad? In the grand scheme of things, is cultural diversity a good thing, or a bad thing? Yes, maybe we would be better off with a monoculture, a single language, because there would be more understanding, less wars, etc. Differences can create incomprehension and hate and all that stuff. But the things is, differences are going to appear anyway, regardless of culture, between individuals. So the answer is not to try and diminish the importance of other languages and cultures in our life for the sake of communication, but rather we should celebrate them, because by learning to open ourselves to other cultures and languages, we learn to open ourselves to outcasts in our own culture, our own family, and within us.
Quebec is a good thing for Canada, because it forces english and french Canadians to think about this difficult issue (and thus learning something), and even if most of them are unfortunately kind of stupid in their response. See this thread for examples... If you live in an environment where you only ever read one language, and always see the same artists, I can guarantee you are going to grow on average more stupid than otherwise.
So why protect french, protect the natives, protect small cultures that would die without help of the government or other external means? Because we get more intelligent and mature as a whole by being in contact with them, and a country made of more tolerant, mature and intelligent people will have a brighter future. This implies that I am actively seeking to diminish other cultures. The issue at hand it quite the opposite. The culture which is supposedly being naturally diminished through outside influences is preserving itself through unconstitutional means. There is no one in this argument that is xenophobic towards Quebec. We are teaching future generations that they should be prideful of something that they had no merrit of accomplishing themselves. Contrary to popular belief pride isn't a beneficial trait and never has been. Even less so when they had no participation in what they are prideful about. Like I said before stressing certain parts of your brain may make those parts more intelligent but not doing so or doing so of other means in no way makes anyone "stupid". In this case it is up to the people to stop being so emotionally tied to something which the world has naturally gone through hundreds of times before and has not made the human race inferior because of it. It's up to them to lose their pride and adapt to new times, not us to support (with our tax dollars) an idiology which puts an emotional tie before constitutional rights
I did not say you were seeking to diminish our culture. However, you seem to be saying we should not help a culture survive "artificially" either. I put artificially in quotations because it is kind of a bizarre idea, because when you think about it this way of doing things through the government is part of the culture too, but anyway I won't get into that.
The constitutional argument is also kind of a bizarre argument, because you're implying that the constitution is some kind of moral absolute, which it isn't.
I didn't say it makes you stupid, I said it makes you more stupid, or rather, what I mean is that a person born in an culturally diverse environment should be more intelligent on average, at least emotionally (I don't mean intelligent in the academic sense).
Also, on the pride issue: you say it is not a beneficial trait. Yes the human mind works in sometimes (actually, very often) counter-productive ways. But there is a reason why we evolved that way: emotional attachment to your community means that you will work to the betterment of it. We judge people (for better and for worse) according to the various values they represent; if one of those values is, for example, your country, your social value get tied in a certain way to that country and its actions. We do that for all kinds of stuff: if you value esport, and esport is doing better, you feel better. Why? One of the reasons is that your values represent you in society, and your societal value is pretty fucking important in your brain, in a very deep way. Maybe you, personally, dont feel that way with your country but I'm pretty sure it is there for other things.
So, saying that we should put our national pride aside because you didn't influence it is ignoring how the brain works and values stuff. Sorry I have trouble properly expressing this idea but I hope you understand. Yes, it sometimes is stupid, but it has ramifications so large that humans wouldn't be humans without it.
So actually it is counter-productive to go and tell people: "stop feeling that way". That won't help in any way. Like you would say to a gay person: "Just change, your way of life is not productive to society because you're not producing children". (I'm stretching the argument a bit I know)
*Edited for some clarifications and spelling mistakes.
|
Your freedom to preserve your culture artificially is in itself a right, but only to a certain degree. Once that freedom crosses over someone elses freedoms towards your own benefit (think a smokers right to smoke wherever he wants vs a non-smokers right to clean air) it immediately becomes a moral issue of which one is more important towards society as a whole.
The constitution may not be a moral absolute but if you don't agree with it then instead of saying it like that, I want you to specifically say the problems you have with the freedom of free speech. I find it's very easy for someone to bash the constitution as a whole to disregard specifics but as soon as you tell them to focus on a certain proposed freedom they have more of a problem.
Another problem I have is with your intelligence argument. Intelligence that is not academic intelligence is purely subjective and once again based on your own world-view.
Before I go onto my next point I feel I have to talk a little bit more about individualism and self-growth. Like I said in my last posts I agree with the idea that everything we do and all the "merritable" decisions we make arn't ours to make because they come from our upbringing and life experiences. But after a little bit of hard thinking while I was out (I'm one of those people where once im engaged in a deep conversation I can't stop thinking about it even when I'm out with other people lol) I thought it must go deeper than that. Once you have the intellect of knowing that your decisions are almost predetermined by your upbringing and experiences then don't you have more of a moral responsibility to go against the grain and try to better determine right from wrong and start to do acts that are likely to be more "merritable"?
aaaanyways that's just my ramblings lol.
I understand that it is completely human to become attached to an idea and feel good when that idea succeeds. And while pride in and of itself may not seem like a terrible trait to have, it has the capabilities of being extremely dangerous. Is the value of having pride of an idea that you believe in worth preserving to the point that you'd cross over a persons freedom of speech. The question isn't "if we can" get people away from nationalistic tendencies it's "should we try". While it's purely human to feel pride when something you believe in does well, why should you? It's easy to say we evolved this way and thus it has it's purpose but like you said there's many evolutionary cases in the human body which are counter-productive.
If I could I would like to say that all pride should be done away with like I said in my last paragraph but you're right to say that it's not humanly possible because we all feel it one way or another. Then it comes down to which way is safer and provides a more healthy society. While being pride of your own acts and self-growth may be wrong because we don't have complete control over it. I feel that it's alot safer than pride in a nationalistic idea.
|
And one more thing (I always do this lol) that is more getting back on the idea of the PQ and Quebec sovreignty. If people are so for bilingualism for intellectual purposes then why is the separatist movement even a thing? Wouldn't the goal be to keep Quebec in Canada and instead promote bilingualism is provinces that arn't only Quebec?
Also, both sides have already agreed that cultures change constantly, humanity has not been at more of a loss because of it. If we accept that all language is, is a tool of communication then what would be the problem of being proud of a culture that spoke english but still had your old customs? Why do people feel their culture would be changed so drastically all because of language? If you are going feel nationalistic towards your culture, why would someone feel more proud of a culture of french speaking people who eat tourtierre on their european style christmas-eve than a english speaking one that does the same?
edit: as I finished typing the second paragraph I sorta realized it was unnecessary because it's already been answered in this thread over a dozen times. The people feel a strong emotional connection to it and they don't feel their language is a mere tool of communication but instead a symbol for their way of life.
I just keep coming back to the same thing and I feel like I'm just running my mouth for the sake of talking but: I feel like holding onto your past emotional connection so tight that change can't get to it even in face of natural adversity is almost in a way...immature. Change and how we deal with it is in a way a part of life that people must go through.
one final disclaimer: I hate making statements like I made in this post because so many people take it offensively. I'm not xenophobic i'm merely looking at a situation where if the only possible way to save a culture is to create radical language laws which cross over individual freedoms then is it worth it or should we accept the natural change? Man I'm always trying to say sorry even before people get offended...lol
|
I don't think what you're saying is offensive, I just think you don't have any understanding of the importance of cultural identity in a society and what it means to people, and the last few pages have been about debating this basic concept. I don't blame you, I don't think I would have that kind of consideration either if my national identity was pretty much a copy of the American culture.
I'm not sure how nationalism came on the subject but this isn't even what it's about. I'm not proud to be Québécois. It's just a huge part of who I am and I want this heritage to stay intact for our next generations. It's not about the past, it's about the future. I truly believe that every culture that disappears or degenerates into some kind of folkloric melting pot is a loss for humanity as a whole. Some changes are bad and they're worth fighting against.
To some extend, you could draw a comparison with animal protection. Your position would be like saying ''well, many tiger species can't survive in nature without reinforcing some laws and removing some rights from humans, so let them die. Why fight against change?''
If you think this is about eating tourtière, you just don't get it, sorry.
On February 22 2013 14:08 Abraxas514 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 04:12 lepape wrote:
The political map of Quebec (and even Montreal) is often seen as seperated on a vertical axis, I'm not sure how you see the north/south demarcation. I would direct you to the link to a picture I merged on page 1: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107275289/Quebec.jpgThis map should also be overlaid on a population density map though. It points to certain causations (as in, university proximity = liberal support) that may be only correlated.
To make sure I understand, to you, if the North of Quebec (with about 1% of the total population) is blue, and there's a bunch of red spots under it, that means the map is separated north/south?
|
On February 23 2013 14:10 lepape wrote:
I don't think what you're saying is offensive, I just think you don't have any understanding of the importance of cultural identity in a society and what it means to people, and the last few pages have been about debating this basic concept. I don't blame you, I don't think I would have that consideration either if my national identity was pretty much a copy of the American culture.
I'm not sure how nationalism came on the subject but this isn't even what it's about. I'm not proud to be Québécois. It's just a huge part of who I am and I want this heritage to stay intact for our next generations. It's not about the past, it's about the future. I truly believe every culture that disappears or degenerates into some kind of folkloric melting pot is a loss for humanity as a whole. Some changes are bad and they're worth fighting against.
If you think this is about eating tourtière, you just don't get it, sorry.
You're right, I don't see how cultural identity is as important as you make it out to be. What people don't understand is that any modern culture of today is just as much a melting pot as the American one. Only it happened a little while longer ago. Yours isn't any more legitimate a culture than the American.
"I'm not proud to be Quebecois. It's just a huge part of who I am and I want this heritage to stay intact" ??? this is completely contradictory. If you truly weren't proud of your heritage then you would be completely okay with change for your children. Not saying that you'd promote change, but you certainly wouldn't say you arn't for it.
I didn't say it was "about eating tourtiere"... I used that as an example as french cultural things which the people keep to hold true to their cultural background.
To some extend, you could draw a comparison with animal protection. Your position would be like saying ''well, many tiger species can't survive in nature without reinforcing some laws and removing some rights from humans, so let them die. Why fight against change?''
You take the two rights and you pit them against eachother to see which is better for society as a whole. It wouldn't harm people one bit if you said they were unable to hunt tigers while a freedom of speech violation is much more serious.
|
You can feel affection for something without feeling proud about it.
|
On February 23 2013 14:33 lepape wrote:
You feel affection for something without feeling proud about it.
Yes you can, but when your scared of a change to what you feel affection towards that is pride. edit: sry I didn't mean exactly what I said here, what i more meant was when you would rather cross over someones freedom of speech instead of submit to a natural change than that is pride
proud
[proud] Show IPA adjective, proud·er, proud·est, adverb
adjective
1.
feeling pleasure or satisfaction over something regarded as highly honorable or creditable to oneself (often followed by of, an infinitive, or a clause).
2.
having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority.
3.
having or showing self-respect or self-esteem.
4.
highly gratifying to the feelings or self-esteem: It was a proud day for him when his son entered college.
5.
highly honorable or creditable: a proud achievement.
|
No, heritage is not about pride, sorry.
It's about keeping what you cherish alive after you're gone. It's nothing more than passing a torch and trying to keep it burning.
|
On February 23 2013 14:40 lepape wrote:
No, it is not.
Heritage is not about pride, sorry. It's about keeping what you cherish alive after you're gone, it's nothing more than just passing a torch.
And why do you cherish it? because it is an achievment worth keeping alive?
|
Because it's a part of who you are. Not because it's better.
We have kids for the same very basic human need, it's called posterity.
(By the way, could you please explain how the bill 101 dampens the freedom of speech in any way?)
|
I don't blame you, I don't think I would have that kind of consideration either if my national identity was pretty much a copy of the American culture.
especially this quote right here. Obviously you feel some sense of cultural superiority that you would think that your culture is more worth having consideration for than an american one
|
Not at all, I can understand your own lack of understanding.
That didn't imply it's a bad or worse culture, because there is no such thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
